These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34261190)

  • 1. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation.
    Davis WT; Rapp JT; Brogan KM; Pinkston JW; Chinnappan B
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2021 Jul; 116(1):96-113. PubMed ID: 34261190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication with auditory stimulation.
    Cook JL; Baruni RR; Pinkston JW; Rapp JT; Miltenberger RG; Deshmukh S; Walker E; Tai S
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 38724460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension.
    Sheridan DJ; Rapp JT; Edgemon AK; Pinkston JW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 38837371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing the results of one-session, two-session, and three-session MSWO preference assessments.
    Conine DE; Morris SL; Kronfli FR; Slanzi CM; Petronelli AK; Kalick L; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):700-712. PubMed ID: 33465255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Iwata BA; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):479-93. PubMed ID: 10641302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy.
    Brogan KM; Rapp JT; Sennott LA; Cook JL; Swinkels E
    Behav Modif; 2018 Jul; 42(4):543-583. PubMed ID: 29172681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Validity of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items.
    Fritz JN; Roath CT; Shoemaker PT; Edwards AB; Hussein LA; Villante NK; Langlinais CA; Rettig LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1688-1701. PubMed ID: 32307709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. PubMed ID: 8995834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of gaze-contingent stimulus elimination on preference judgments.
    Morii M; Sakagami T
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1351. PubMed ID: 26441727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing Preferences for Animals in Children with Autism: A New Use for Video-Based Preference Assessment.
    Guérin NA; Rodriguez KE; Brodhead MT; O'Haire ME
    Front Vet Sci; 2017; 4():29. PubMed ID: 28344974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An Evaluation of a Brief Video-Based Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment.
    Brodhead MT; Al-Dubayan MN; Mates M; Abel EA; Brouwers L
    Behav Anal Pract; 2016 Jun; 9(2):160-4. PubMed ID: 27606245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.
    Daly EJ; Wells NJ; Swanger-Gagné MS; Carr JE; Kunz GM; Taylor AM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):563-74. PubMed ID: 20190919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J; George T; Jones K; Broussard C; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli.
    Koehler LJ; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM; Rolider NU; O'Steen LE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(4):469-84. PubMed ID: 16463528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing Preference and Stability of Preference for Individuals with Neurocognitive Disorder.
    Ford MN; Bayles MW; Bruzek JL
    Behav Anal Pract; 2022 Sep; 15(3):782-795. PubMed ID: 36457833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characterization of performance on an automated visual recognition memory task in 7.5-month-old infants.
    Dzwilewski KLC; Merced-Nieves FM; Aguiar A; Korrick SA; Schantz SL
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2020; 81():106904. PubMed ID: 32485220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device.
    Hoffmann AN; Brady AM; Paskins RT; Sellers TP
    Behav Anal Pract; 2019 Jun; 12(2):335-342. PubMed ID: 31976239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eye Preference for Emotional Stimuli in Sichuan Snub-Nosed Monkeys.
    Zhao D; Wang Y; Li B
    Folia Primatol (Basel); 2020; 91(6):630-642. PubMed ID: 32937622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment for sexual partners: Test-retest stability.
    Jarmolowicz DP; LeComte RS; Lemley SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Oct; 55(4):1059-1067. PubMed ID: 35739612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Physical Features of Visual Images Affect Macaque Monkey's Preference for These Images.
    Funahashi S
    Front Behav Neurosci; 2016; 10():212. PubMed ID: 27853424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.